Byzantine Relations with the Franks and the Papacy in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries.

Ryan Renfro

The imperial coronation of Charlemagne was without a doubt the central event of the early middle ages.  As the consummation of relations between the Franks and the papacy, Charlemagne’s coronation reestablished the empire in the west and created an ideological rival to the emperors in Constantinople.  Although the growth of Frankish political power and prestige in the late eighth and ninth centuries created an amount of friction with the Byzantine empire, relations remained good for the most part.  The greater conflict between orient and occident during this period was that between the papacy and Byzantium, since the growth of ideas of papal primacy and universal jurisdiction created a real threat to the powers that be in Constantinople as evident in the Photian schism.

            Philip Grierson once wrote that Byzantine-Carolingian relations during the eighth and ninth centuries could be divided into three phases:  a phase before 800, marked by the growth of Frankish power in the west but no theoretical issues, the coronation of Charlemagne and the problems of Byzantine recognition of the Frankish claim and the era of Louis II, in which the emperorship in the west was reduced to Italy but both empires cooperated against the Muslims in southern Italy.[1]  Although this model should probably include a forth period to account for the peaceful gap between 812 and the reign of Louis II, it nevertheless provides a logical division for the period.

            By the second half of the eighth century the Byzantine emperors found themselves increasingly unable to provide protection to the papacy against encroachments by the Lombards, loosing their own exarch capital Ravenna in 751.  The papacy, which had hitherto gladly pronounced its loyalty to the emperor in Constantinople, was mindful of declining Byzantine power in the region and began to look elsewhere for military support.[2]  The king of the Franks, Pepin, provided that support when he invaded Italy in 754 in response to papal pleading, establishing a Lombard government friendly to the popes and granting to Pope Stephen the former Byzantine city of Ravenna.  In response for his aid, Pepin’s kingship was sanctioned by the papacy.  Although a major step in relations between the papacy and the Franks, this was by no means a permanent solution to popes’ troubles.  The Lombard kingdom soon proved itself a threat to the papacy once again, necessitating its overthrow by Pepin’s son, Charles, in 774.  Physical evidence of the alienation of the papacy from Byzantium comes in the form of papal documents, which under Hadrian I were not longer dated by the reigns of Byzantine emperors and the discontinuation of Byzantine coins minted in Rome.[3]  At first glance this alliance between the Franks and the popes might seem an immediate threat to the Byzantines, however with no theoretical encroachment upon their rights, the Byzantines could not be that displeased since they lacked the power to accomplish in Italy what the Franks had.

            The Byzantine response to this new alliance was not a hostile one.  The initial papal appeal to the Franks carried the emperor’s approval, undoubtedly since the Lombards threatened to overthrown the whole of Italy.  As for direct contact with the Franks, the Byzantines sent an embassy to Pepin while in Italy, which he declined to see, and a second to Compiegne in 757 bearing gifts.[4]  The Greeks recognized Frankish power in the west, however they demanded their former territory of Ravenna back, a concession neither the Franks nor the papacy was willing to make.  There is reason to believe that relations were good and respect was mutual.  Numerous scholars point to wedding proposals, such as the one between Constantine’s son Leo IV and Pepin’s daughter Gisela, as and indication that the Byzantines regarded the Franks as a partially Roman race, not as barbarous as the other nations with whom Constantine VII later forbade marriage alliances.[5]  Thus we see that through the last years of the eighth century Byzantium’s relations with the Franks and the papacy remained relatively peaceful and good-natured despite the shift in primary political alliance of the papacy away from Byzantium to the Franks.

            Relations between east and west entered a new phase with Charlemagne’s coronation on Christmas day, 800.  The Franks played an ever increasingly important role in protecting the popes and when Charlemagne intervened to restore Leo III, who had been exiled by the Roman nobility, to St. Peters, he was rewarded with an imperial coronation.  Whether or not this was a surprise to Charlemagne made little difference to ensuing relations with Byzantium.  By reestablishing the empire in the west, Leo had broken the old ties with Byzantium in proclaiming a new emperor of the Romans.  As the Greek Theophanes wrote, “Rome [was] now in the hands of the Franks.”[6]  How was Leo III able to make such a claim?  The coronation in Rome makes little sense without looking toward Byzantium at this time.  The emperor Leo IV died in 780, leaving his wife Irene as regent for the young Constantine VI.  Weak and irresponsible, Irene had her son deposed and blinded in 797, proclaiming herself basileus, emperor, instead of the common basilissa or wife of the emperor.[7]  The papal curia was appalled by this terrible act and regarded the throne in Constantinople as vacant.  With no emperor in the east, the pope was free to name Charles Emperor of the Romans in the west.  Although Charlemagne may have demanded a title more than rex Francorum to account for his increasing power, the coronation of 800 set Leo III up as the one who makes the emperor.

            Charlemagne’s coronation was destined to create friction with the Byzantines, who since Constantine the Great moved the capital to Constantinople and the collapse of the empire in the west had regarded themselves as the only true heirs to the empire of the Romans.  Although the only physical tension between the two empires where a number of small territorial disputes in Italy, the real conflict came in the form of the ideological dispute, since the existence of the new empire in the west questioned the legitimacy of the Byzantine Empire.

            Although Grierson claims that the coronation was merely viewed as illegal and not scandalous in Byzantium, which may have been the case under the certainly scandalous rule of Irene, the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I was anything but pleased with the new development.[8]  Despite the nearly constant movement of ambassadors between Constantinople and Aachen, no agreement could be reached under Nicephorus.[9]  The Franks were knowledgeable enough about Byzantine society to know that the title imperator Romanorum would insult the Byzantines and thus adopted the title imperator Romanum gubernans imperium or “emperor who among other things ruled the Roman Empire.”[10]  This shows a willingness on the part of Charlemagne to compromise on his new title in order to earn the recognition of the older empire which he clearly did not regard as vacant or replaced.  In fact, one reason for the Franks not adopting the title imperator Romanorum is that the Byzantines would see the assumption of such a title as a claim upon their throne.  Despite Charlemagne’s initial marriage proposal to Irene, he was in no position to take the throne in the east and the proposal is seen rather as a vehicle for discussions over the recognition of his title.  Grierson’s second phase is thus characterized by Frankish attempts at Byzantine recognition met by willingness to discuss but little progress.  Rome on the other hand lacked the political power to force Byzantium into negotiations as evident in the letter from the Patriarch Nicephorus to the pope, claiming that Emperor Nicephorus had forbade him to dispatch the traditional synodica to the pope announcing his appointment.  Therefore despite the Franks’ new title, it was the popes who met with more hostility from the Byzantine Emperors.

            Relations changed in 811 with the death of Nicephorus.  The Franks had destroyed the kingdom of the Avars several years before, freeing the Bulgars to concentrate their forces against the Byzantines to their south, a struggle in which Nicephorus was killed.  The Frankish kingdom, in contrast, was still expanding.  Charlemagne’s son Pepin captured Venice in 811, a city which had formerly been under the Byzantine sphere of influence.  Desperate for allies against the Bulgars and desiring peace in Italy, the new Emperor Michael I dispatched an embassy to Aachen.  Although insistent upon maintaining the title “Roman,” the Byzantines proclaimed Charlemagne “in their own manner, that is, in the Greek tongue… emperor and basileus.”[11]  In return Charlemagne relinquished control of Venice, although joint action against the Bulgars could not be agreed upon.  The Byzantines were therefore willing to recognize Charlemagne’s new title as that which is due to a ruler of his power in the hopes that would help create a useful ally.  Although Frankish power would help bring some stability to the western Mediterranean, its defeat of the Avars disrupted the balance of power in the Balkins leaving Byzantium to deal with hostile Bulgars so close to its capital.  The compromise in 812 did, however, usher in a period of good relations and stability for not only the Franks and the Byzantines but the papacy as well.  With the titular controversy behind them for the time being and with Frankish expansion soon to be curbed by the death of Charlemagne, the two empires came into a state of what Jonathon Shepard refers to as “equilibrium.”[12]

            The situation in Italy changed upon the arrival of the Muslims in Sicily in 829.  Slowly taking more and more Byzantine territory in southern Italy, they were able to sack the suburbs of Rome in 846.  Although Emperor Theophilus had approached Emperor Louis the Pius in 839 seeking an alliance, nothing came of it or further attempts under Lothar I.  The first progress made in cooperative action against the Muslims came during the reign of Basil I, whose expansionist desires in Italy led him to befriend Emperor Louis II, who was in reality nothing more than a king of Italy, and Pope Hadrian II.  Although all sides saw themselves as fighting on essentially the same side against Islam, Basil I was soon disillusioned by his lack of gains despite the Frankish capture of Bari.  Although documentation for this period is inadequate, there is a draft of a letter from Louis II to Basil from which some information may be deduced.  Although it is uncertain whether the letter was ever sent, it is thought to date from just after the fall of Bari in 871 and to have been composed by the papal librarian Anastasius.[13]  In it, Louis II calls himself imperator Romanorum and Basil Imperator novae Romae.  Although sent to ask for a new Byzantine fleet to help in Italy, Anastasius includes this insulting title, as well as an argument for its use.  He argues a number of different points, each in response to a specific Byzantine objection.  While there is no evidence of what preceded this message- it does seem to point to a prior Byzantine statement on the matter- this in their view usurpation of what the Byzantines held to be their sole title would have undoubtedly caused a breakdown in relations such as we see in the later cancellation of the engagement between Basil’s son Constantine and Louis’ daughter made in 869.  The breakdown in the 870s, however, can be best viewed as the inevitable outcome of the two empires, each with the same claim to Christian Roman heritage, coming in closer contact with one another and competing over gains in Italy.

            The Franks were not alone in having complications in their relations with Constantinople after 850; the papacy too had ideological disputes with Byzantium as well.  Problems began in 858 with the election of Photios to the Patriarchy of Constantinople.  Photios had been uneconomically raised to his office too quickly upon the disposition of Ignatius, prompting rival factions to appeal to Pope Nicholas.  Nicholas, a strong proponent of the primacy and universality of the papacy, dispatched a letter to the other patriarchs asking them not to recognize Photios in 862.  Despite a prior recognition by papal legates in 861, Nicholas excommunicated Photios in a Roman synod in 863.  Photios’ excommunication is significant because in it the pope, who was accepted as first bishop and to which clerics had a right to appeal but who was not acknowledged as having the ability to summon others to be tried, claimed the right to name a fellow Patriarch.[14]  Needless to say this was not well received in Constantinople.  The Emperor Michael III responded with a letter demanding Photios’ excommunication be withdrawn immediately.  Photios rejected Roman supremacy as well, accusing the Latin Church of liturgical errors, of false doctrine such as the filioque, and a general lack of discipline.[15]  In so doing, Photios set himself up as judge of the west.  He is thought to be the author of a work entitled Epanagoge in which the Emperor and Patriarch are proclaimed to be the two heads of the universe.[16]  Photios’ criticisms of the west came to a climax in 867, when Nicholas I was excommunicated at a synod in Constantinople with none other than the emperor in attendance.  The breakdown in papal relations with Byzantium was worse that that of the Franks in the 870s because Nicholas was not merely claiming the right to the same title as his Byzantine counterpart as the Frankish emperor had done, but instead was claiming an actual right over the Patriarch in what was received as an attack on the sovereignty of the Byzantine church.

            The sees of Rome and Constantinople also came into conflict over the newly converted lands in Bulgaria.  Although initially converted by the Byzantines, the Bulgarian king Boris sought council from Rome in 866.  Boris desired his own patriarchy instead of an archbishopric along with several Frankish clergymen.  When the pope sent his own choice of clergy, along with a refusal to grant the Bulgarian king his own personal patriarch, he returned to Byzantium in 879.  Although the competition between oriental and occidental churches for the kingdom of Bulgaria strained relations between Rome and Constantinople, it was not nearly so great a conflict as that of the Photian Schism.

            The situation was altered upon the ascension of Basil I to the throne in 867, anxious for allies in Italy.  Photios was deposed and Ignatius restored, and in 869-70 what Rome considers to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople.  Although no verdict could be reached on papal primacy or who actually deposed Photios, it was decided that Bulgaria would come under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.  Although this was intended to heal the division, Basil had no qualms in appointing Photios again in 877 upon the death of Ignatius after his Italian ambitions had come to naught.  In need of help against the Muslims in Italy, Pope John VIII sent his legates to Constantinople to make peace with Photios in 879.  They receive some vague rights in Bulgaria, military assistance in Italy, and “affirmations of papal primacy [which] from a Byzantine perspective, [were] relatively innocuous and unenforceable claims which could be tolerated from afar.”[17]  The great controversy over Photios, at its center a dispute over papal primacy, was in the end resolved peacefully, the Byzantine’s allowing papal claims go without serious challenge in 879 but outright rejecting any actual power of the papacy over the eastern church.

            Although relations between the Franks and Byzantium were strained at times, their relative distance prevented any serious disputes as large as that of the schism in the 860s.  Caused by the growth of papal claims of primacy and jurisdiction over all of Christendom and the willingness of certain segments within the eastern church to appeal to Rome when the situation favored their rivals in Constantinople, this real conflict was certainly greater than either that created by Charlemagne’s coronation or Louis’ possible assumption of the title imperator Romanorum, which in itself may have been crafted by papal curia members such as Anastasius.

Bibliography

Boojamra, John L.  “The Photian Synod and the Papal Commonitorium of 879.” 

Byzantine Studies.  Vol 9, I.  Canada: Charles Sclacks Jr., 1982.

Browning, Robert.  The Byzantine Empire.  Washington D.C.:  The Catholic University

of America Press, 1992.

Brubaker, Leslie., ed.  Byzantium in the ninth century : dead or alive? : papers from the

Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996.  Ashgate: Aldershot, 1998.

Fleckenstein, Josef.  Early Medieval Germany.  Trans. Bernard S. Smith.  Oxford: North-

Holland Publishing Company, 1978.

Grierson, Philip.  “The Carolingian Empire in the eyes of Byzantium.”  Settimane di

Studio.  Vol 27, II .  Spoleto: Pressso La Sede de Centro, 1981, pp. 885-916.

Howard-Johnson, J. D., ed.  Byzantium and the West c. 850-c.1200: Proceedings of the

XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.  Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M.

Hackkert, 1988.

Ostrogorsky, George.  History of the Byzantine State.  Trans. Joan Hussey.  Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1968.

Reuter, Timothy.  Germany in the early Middle Ages 800-1056.  London: Longman,

1991.

[1] Grierson, Philip.  “The Carolingian Empire in the eyes of Byzantium.”  p. 896.

[2] Ibid, 900.

[3] Brown, T.S.  “The Background of Byzantium relations with Italy in the Ninth Century: Legacies, Attachments and Antagonisms.”  Byzantium and the West c. 850-c.1200: Proceedings of the XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.  p. 31.

[4] Ibid, 901.

[5] Ibid, 903.

[6] Brown, p. 36.

[7] Browning, Robert.  The Byzantine Empire.  p. 60.

[8] Grierson, p. 906.

[9] Wickham, Chris.  “Ninth-century Byzantium through western eyes.”  Brubaker, Leslie., ed.  Byzantium in the ninth century : dead or alive? : papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996.  p. 246.

[10] Fleckenstein, Josef.  Early Medieval Germany. p. 81.

[11] Shepard, Jonathon.  “Byzantine relations with the outside world in the ninth century: an introduction.”  Byzantium in the ninth century: Dead or Alive, p. 167.

[12] Ibid, p. 169.

[13] Grierson, p887-891.

[14]